Stevenson v. Gault

199 S.W. 112, 131 Ark. 397, 1917 Ark. LEXIS 165
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 26, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 199 S.W. 112 (Stevenson v. Gault) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stevenson v. Gault, 199 S.W. 112, 131 Ark. 397, 1917 Ark. LEXIS 165 (Ark. 1917).

Opinion

HART, J.

This is a bill in equity filed by J. L. Gault and Jane Gault to dissolve the partnership of J. L. Gault & Company and to wind up its business.

The complaint states that the firm owned large bodies of lands which were mortgaged to secure its debts and J. L. Gault and Jane Gault owned lands as tenants in common and that J. L. Gault had mortgaged his interest in said lands tó secure the firm’s creditors. All the creditors of the firm, both those who were secured by mortgages and those whose debts were unsecured were made parties to the action.

A decree was entered ordering the sale of the lands. Pursuant to the decree the lands were sold on May 1, 1916. Among the lands sold were the following: The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section two, township five north, range nineteen west, containing 82.06 acres. J. F. Stevenson became the purchaser of said lands, having bid therefor the sum of $500. Jane Gault and other creditors filed exceptions to the report of sale of the commissioner, and among the lands were embraced the lands sold to Stevenson.

Testimony was taken on both, sides. The- court sustained the exceptions to quite a number of tracts sold and among them the tract sold to Stevenson. Inasmuch as no appeal was taken from the ruling of the court except by Stevenson, we need only set out the testimony relating thereto and the finding of the court with reference thereto.

The land purchased by Stevenson lies in both Conway and Yell Counties. The Petit Jean River runs through the land and is the dividing , line between Yell and Conway Counties. All that part of the land which lies in Yell County is rich alluvial soil and produces fine crops of cotton and corn. That part of the land which is in Conway County is of slate formation. It was hilly and worth but little for cultivation or for any other purpose. These facts were known to the bidders attending the sale. J. T. Dunbar first bid for the land $1,000. J. H. Parker, a lawyer and real estate man attending the sale, had a copy of the map of the land traced by a former county surveyor of Yell County and after referring to his map, laughingly warned Dunbar that he had better be careful, that nearly all of the land was situated on the south side of Petit Jean. The map was handed around among those present at the sale and it showed that most of the land was situated in Conway County. It"appears that those present accepted the map as showing the true situation of the land and on that account refrained from bidding on it. Because he thought that most of the land was in Conway County, Mr. Dunbar asked permission to withdraw his bid and this was granted him by the commissioner making the sale. J. F. Stevenson then bid the sum of $500, and that- being the highest bid the land was struck off to him.

Prior to the sale the land had been appraised by three practical farmers who had lived in Yell County for many years and who were familiar with the character of land sold. They appraised the land in question at an average of $42 per acre and testified that they thought this was the reasonable value of the land.

Another witness testified that he had been over the land when it was first purchased by J. L. Gault and knew its value. He stated that the price put on it by the appraisers was very conservative.

Another witness testified that he had- purchased a forty acre tract at the sale near this ■ one for $4,000 and that he considered it to be worth that amount; that he considered the land he bought to be worth something more than 40 acres of the land in question but stated that all the land in question which was in Yell County was fine land. He also bought two other forty acre tracts at the sale situated near this one and paid for one of them $3,500 and for the other $2,900.

A tenant who had been on the land for more than ten years testified that the part of it situated in Yell County was very fine and that it always produced good crops of cotton. He stated that the land would produce nearly a bale of cotton to the acre. The thread of the stream is the dividing line between Yell County and Conway County. A survey was made of the land and something over sixty acres of it is on the Yell County side of the river. There is also a levee and a road through the land on that side of the river. There are about fifty-two acres of the land north of the levee and there are a few acres between the levee and road and Petit Jean Biver. The whole of the fifty-two acres except a thicket is in cultivation. The thicket comprises six or eight acres and when cleared can be cultivated and is of the same character as the remainder of the land in Yell County.

According to the testimony of Stevenson and Parker the land was not worth much more than $1,000. Parker still adhered to his original opinion that the greater part of it was in Conway County.

During the pendency of the action J. L. Gault died and A. N. Palls was appointed special administrator of his estate. After the land had been ordered sold B. E. Pugh, representing a company which had mortgages on part of the lands, came to Dardanelle for the purpose of examining them. He went to see Mr. A. N. Falls who was the cashier of a bank, which also had a mortgage on a part of the lands. Falls and Pngh together examined a part of the land. Falls then recommended J. F. Stevenson as a suitable man to accompany Pugh. Among other lands examined by Pugh and Stevenson was the 82.06 acre tract in controversy. Falls and Stevenson were both dealers in real estate and usually each took the other in on deals that he made.

Stevenson said that he did not say anything to Dunbar or anyone else to induce him not to' bid on the land. He stated that he and Pugh were standing close together at the sale and the commissioner remarked after Dunbar had withdrawn his bid that if he could not get a bid on the land he was going to throw it out; that Pugh then remarked to him “let’s take a gamble on it;” that he, Stevenson, said all right and then bid $500 for the land and it was struck off to him; that later on in the afternoon, that he and Pugh took Falls in on the purchase. He was asked if Falls was supposed to be in on all the lands bought by him and answered “Yes, sir. If he buys land and I want to go in I can, and if I buy land it is the other way — a kind of partnership.” Stevenson further stated that there was no general partnership between him and Falls but if either one of them bought a piece of land the other usually came.in on it if he wanted to.

The chancellor found that the prices in all cases in which exceptions had ¡been filed were so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court and further found as follows:

“And as to exceptions No. 1, the same being exceptions to the report of sale to J. F. Stevenson for the sum of $500 for the north half northeast quarter, and northwest quarter of northeast quarter, section 2, township five, N. R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Looper v. Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass'n
729 S.W.2d 156 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987)
Campbell v. Campbell
725 S.W.2d 585 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1987)
Keirs v. Mt. Comfort Enterprises, Inc.
587 S.W.2d 8 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1979)
Mulkey v. White
242 S.W.2d 836 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1951)
Hinton v. Elliott
63 S.W.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1933)
Hawkins v. Wood
18 S.W.2d 371 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1929)
Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Pope
5 S.W.2d 330 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Rose v. Bray
290 S.W. 601 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1927)
Bigpond v. Page
1926 OK 964 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Bauer v. Wade
282 S.W. 359 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1926)
Polk v. Afflick
271 S.W. 962 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
Doyle v. Maxwell
244 S.W. 732 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Chapin v. Quisenberry
210 S.W. 341 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1919)
Moore v. McJudkins
206 S.W. 445 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 S.W. 112, 131 Ark. 397, 1917 Ark. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-gault-ark-1917.